tv Abatement Appeals Board 71515 SFGTV August 3, 2015 9:00pm-10:31pm PDT
good morning. today is wednesday july 15, 2015. this is a regular meeting of aidatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to turn off electroning devices. the first item is roll call. resident nel gar, here. vice [inaudible] commissioner mar, here. commissioner lee, here. commissioner mu cray, present. commissioner walker here. the next item is the oath. all
parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand. >> is there a translator? >> yes there is. do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. you may be seated. next item is item c, approval of minutes. discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for the meetings held may 20, 2015 and june 17, 2015. >> do we have a motion? >> move to approve >> second. >> motion and second. all commissioners in favor? >> aye. public comment? any opposed? the minutes are approved. item b, continue appeal abatement. case number
6812, 938 [inaudible] working [inaudible] llc. attorney for the appellate zacksman freedman. the violation sited xhisted before the purchase of property and it is working to repair the conditions and necessary approval before proceeding further. appellates argue all work has been performed. >> i ask a question of the city attorney? do we call both of the items on the ajunda together or take them separately? >> it is up to you. need to allot the time accordingly so the parties can present. they normally have 7 minutes so it
is 14 minutes and then 6 minutes rebutal >> i think that is probably better in the interest of time. >> in addition we will also be hearing case number 6813 for 9308940 nob hampshire street [inaudible] attorney [inaudible] issuing order of abatement [inaudible] existed before the purchase of property and working to repair condition and waiting approval from dbi. palt argues all work has been performed. for the record each site-side gets 7 minutes for a presentation but now get 14 minutes and.
>> thank you members of the board. reez maer [inaudible] chief housing instreckt specter. we are looking at appeal item 6812 and 6813 regarding 938-940 hampshire street. this is a 2 unit building over a basement and this particular-these appeals before you are related to notices of violation issued early january of this year, specifically january 21 and 22 of this year. the first item contained in that is appeal 6812, contained appreciately 20 items that dealt with maintenance throughout the building. in your staff reports you see a series of photo's that show the condition of the building. as you will
hear later on the commission, you will address related issuewise respect to the same property. these notices of violation have-first let me say the current property owner took the title to the property early in january of this year, approximately i think the deed was recorded in january 15 of this year. so, when we went to the directors hearing in april they did have notice. you will see on the documentation that shows the owner but when we sent the notice it did also sent to the existing owner of record and in deed on or around february 10 of this year all outstanding notices of violation were hand delivered to the property owners representative at the site and a reinspection occurred on or
about february 13 in which the district inspector went through the building and addressed the violations that are on the notice of violation issued, specifically the one with 20 items was through those and found at the time of the inspection only 2 of the items were partially corrected and everything else is still outstanding. in the package there is photographic evidence of thisism here is a time we took a photo at the site in may. here is a window that is broken so if it was fixed doesn't look like it so here is a sich tuation with respect to the that [inaudible] supposed to be fixed but they rp removed. if they were in good shape i'm not sure why they were removed at that point in time. that is one thing, another thing they said they
thought all imets were fixed. the strapping of the water heaters and this is the same for both there is no strapping on the other one. there was a stap at the top. just things like that. we can go back and forth as to whether they were fixed or not but come april 3rd of the year the building was in such bad shape the department of building inspection said the building had to be vacated. the building repairs were not commensurate for people to occupy this building. the one thing i want to convey is the property owners made poor choizs with respect to the contractors involved in the case. there were a permit taken out that was lez for the need oaf the repairs. after the buildic was vacated >> what date was that?
>> after the building was vacated april 3rd they tried to pull a permit for 20 or 30 thousand. mr. [inaudible] now that he is involved is very helpful. the permit filed now is for 300 thousand. the issues we were having ongoing issuewise the contractors associated with this doing the appropriate work. the other thing to be aware of it shows the bad decision making. sinss the building was vacated a contractor removered the front stairs so the stairway system at the building was removed. what this demonstrates and want this to demonstrate is the fact that poor chases are made and this is what we have been dealing with. they say something is fixed and it isn't fix squd the building is inl such bad shape it has to be vacated. this stairway system,
this was taken this morning and the stairway is gone and sited in june by the building inspector. the stairway is gone. this is the type of thing dbi has had to deal with. here is another photograph. the stairs are gone. this is what we deal with, they say things are fixed and they are not fixed. when you look that's check list of the inspector only a couple things were addressed. there was one item with respect tohad broken windows and a lock, but everything else on the notice of violation issued on the 21, of the 20 items they were essentially not repaired. we do believe based on this history it is crucial that this order be recorded so that when the exstense v remodel or repair is conducted, that check list is sital out there that who ever the contractor is at
the time looks at that and make the repairs needed and insure those thingerize fixed. if there was ever a argument to be made a fr a order being issued so that is on there for all to see as a recorded instrument this is the case. that is sth first order, let's talk about the second. there are flee items on it. the property owner taking over in january having conversation in early february did have ability to take care of these. mr. [inaudible] and their attorney has been involved i want to commend them for some of the things they have doing foohelp advice the property owner. that had to do with the exterior garbage, loft and sanitation and believe those itemerize taken care of. as far as issuing the order there, we don't believe it is necessary but have about 2
thousand dollars for each case for assessment of cost because we had to spend a lot of time to compel clients and believe that should be instituted. we are not as concerned about the second item because it was a few item squz believe it is taken, the first 20 items we believe should be issued based on the information and summary i have given you. >> yes. >> so i have a question about the stairs. was that a violation? i don't see that as being- >> no that was not part of the notice of violation that is before you in the first item there appeal, 6812. i'm just talking about the fact that this is what we are dealing with. problems and poor decision on the part of who ever the agents are that are
selected by the property owner to perform work. this is the type of thing we are dealing with as far as repairs and reinspection. they say things are done and they are not done and then you have permits taken out that are not commensurate with the amount of work to be done and you have this done after we had had a meeting with the representatives of the property owner and this happens after that. there are these instances where it is just a problem as far as decisions that are made on the property own rbs part >> and it means those units are uninhabitable? >> yes >> at this point >> the order to haveicate is still in force and it is my understanding the build sg not currently acpied >> commissioners anyone have further questions? i just have one question. at the directors hearing for the first item, was
it the new owner who or their representative who came to the hearing? >> yes i believe mr. bus cuvch was representing them. >> okay, thank you. we'll hear from the appellate. >> good morning commissioners. >> good morning >> um, i note mrs. [inaudible] on the address of orders of abatement and not relocation appeal >> that is separate >> i'll reserve that separately >> for the next meeting >> very good. first i wanted to comment on the inaccuracy in the brief and i do apologize for those. i think the examples that mr. bosky demonstrated are relatively minor in the grand schemef things. a broken window and
water heater that isn't strapped is not the type of issues we are here for this morning. i apologize for those. all i can see are there are miscommunications to us that made it to the office. what i do think is more important to focus on is theerts made by this property owner taking title to the property in midjan. at this point in time the property owner doesn't have a permit and has been working to get a permit to address the issues. we have the classic catch 22 who has come into a difficult situation and can't get a permit to do the burke to correct these issues. start with the basic premise, which is the building we had the benefit, it isn't necessarily a benefit but the benefit for the situation that the units are
note occupied so we can remove that concern from the evaluation of the situation. i think the commission should do that in evaluating this. the finding that exists in the staff report the owner had sufficient time to abate the haserdize conditions is incorrect. in mid-january this property owner took over, attempted to locate a contractor who would touch the building which isn't a easy tarfck, obtained a permit in mid-march before [inaudible] issued the emergency vacate order. the permit was issued in mid-march and relocation issued in early april. by the end of march the owner noticed the tenants to relocate for repair squz the tenants responded by filing a lawsuit which they are entitled to do
but complicated matters for the owner to move forward. april third, the department issued the order and further notice of evaluation shortly there after which begins or efforts and mr. nob efforts at getting the building fixed. may 8 the department issued further correction notice so it is something of a moving target for this propt owner to try to figure out what needs to be done and get permits for fixing them. i think in the grand scheme of things and how long these issued persisted is a short period of time. i realize 5 or 6 months isn't a short period of time but if you look at the record on the property you see a complaint issued in 1994 for walls and ceiling surfaces that are
damaged. kitchen or plaster damage. egress removed. bathroom damage, worn floors rear passage obstructed. these issued existed in 1994 so this isn't something that can be fixed in 5 or 6 months and apparently not something the department has been able to address in 20 years time and don't mean that to be critical of the de#35r789s, i mean to demonstrate the severity of the issues here. that complaint resulted in a directors hearing in 1995 and what became of that i don't know, but what i can say is there have been several other related complaints and noitss of violations and orders of abatement and those remain in the record that re today remain a record putting aside the 2 we are here to address
today, these are ongoing issues that are not easy to deal with. if you compare the existing orders of abatement with the list of items you deal with today you find overlap and i did find overlap and don't think it is praept to penalize the samitems. it was related to general nuisance and, paint and plumbing issue. the is inappropriate to further penalize the property owners for the prior abatement that had the exact effect. in terms of deal wg orders of abatement, we believe we are diligent. mr. bus covich will talk about obtaining a permit which i understand it very close to happen. we agree the property needs to be fixed and would very much like to fix it. the
property owner made more than diligent efforts. there are missteps along with the way but it is the difficulty he has had to deal with as anything else and don't think it is appropriate to penalize him for that. we would ask that the order of abatement either be resended or not be issued. >> thank you. how are we doing with time? >> 8 minutes >> we have 6 minutes if mr. bus cuvich has anything to add. >> [inaudible] >> okay >> i'll be brief. i was hired 3 days before the april hearing. the conditions out there are not acceptable. the only reason i'm working on this case is because i think i can help t. may sound corny but i think i can help. the department is very helpful to
do this but it is complex issue. there was a 95 permit issued to comply with the 94 complaint that wasn't finaled. the back stairs are not usable. the building can't be occupied with those back stairs. the building departments assisted in getting the plans from 95 and i met from planning and plannings response is you can't rebuild the back stairs unless you prove the 95 plans were completed. i had to go back and get that 95 plan, file a permit to renew the 95 plans and then get those plans finaled and now i'm submitting these drawings which show the 95 plans so i can build back to that. that is a complication for the last couple months dealing with the back stairs.
everyone is helpful trying to move it along. the back stairs are now permitted per 95 so i'm allowed to rebuild them to the 95 drawings without getting a variance. we had to bring in a structural engineer for the back stairs, so we are moving as fast as we can to get this back to be vack pieable but the key problem i got-the other issues are not satisfactory but the back stairs are a hold up. [inaudible] we want you to remove sheet rock and that is one or two days worth of work. we have a lot more work in there. the stairs in the back is holding up the permit for inside because they want a master permit and on the front stairs, there was a complaint about the condition of the front stairs. i saw them, they were not safe. that complaint got superseded by another
complaint and that second complaint didn't mention the stairs, but a permit to comply with the complaint is not grounds to rebuild the front stairs. that was clearly a mistake to do that work. if you have any questions i'm happy to answer >> commissioner walker and then- >> thank you for coming and speaking to us about this. what do you estimate assuming you can submit the plans and things go- >> they are submitted. >> to do this project and comply with the notice of viivation what is a timeframe? >> the permit should be issued assuming planning doesn't change their minds since i talked to them and did what they asked me to do, we should get the permit some time next week, should. the construction cost, somewhere a couple hundred thousand dollars so it
is probably 3 to 5 months worth of work and it needs 3 to 5 months worth of work. >> commissioner mar. >> when you said planning requires there to be one master permit- >> if you enlarge stairs in the rear yard--if you have existing stairs you repair the state housing act says the city and planning can not prohibited you from repairing but you can't repair something that doesn't have a permit unless it expired in 95. >> does that permit to rebuild the back stairs which you submitted now, did hold up the other work that needs to be done? >> it is all tied together. i have the permit filed and fs with plang yesterday and will go back to see planning today. i have a appointment and think
i satisfied planning concern i'm moving in the right direction. the intent was that 94 complaint had plans. that is what the building department wants us to build to. it includes all the rooms because there are more rooms than there are supposed to be and the back stairs. >> my question is, until you get the permit from planning which is hopefully next week you can't do anything in there now? >> accept removing sheet hp walk and the contractor is concerned about stepping into this project without having the real permit and there are issues with the tenants that i'm not dealing with, that is them, i'm trying to get the permit and get it fixed. there are belongs in rooms that are somewhat of a issue too but that is their issue.
>> commissioner nob [inaudible] >> so the tenants have been removered per our order. when was the building built? >> probably 1908. >> so the intention is to bring at least the occupants back who can legally be there, is that the-i know it isn't our jurisdiction but i am trying to figure out- >> i'm rebuilding the building back to the 94 plans that shows 2 units. >> okay so that would be something that has to be worked out but that is a issue for us. i want to just say that we have-we routinely consider the fact that this is peoples homes as we try and accommodate the work to be done as well as-that is a consideration.
>> people have rights. absolutely >> commissioner >> i would like clarification because it says in attachment 2 of what the appellate gave to us , it says some permits were obtained to perform works, plumbing and electric >> there is a building permit that says comply with 7 notices to violation. you cannot rebuild back stairs that says comply with nlv. the building department said we don't want you to do anything under that permit other than removing sheet rock >> that is the 20 to 30 thousand [inaudible] >> that directed me to get drawings, architectural, structural, but that 94 permt was a glitch because it never got finaled so when i went to w
the drawings to planning to rebuild the back stairs they said they are not permitted. that requires fire wall and 311 notice. they have been very helpful. we have been able to final the 94 permt so now i go back to planning and say now the stairs that are there now that need to be rebuild are now legal so now i can rebuild them >> commissioner [inaudible] >> is the building built under the old code? >> just the layout. the back stairs and the room layout. >> okay. >> with minor tweaks, but the room layout is what theyant me to comply with on the drawings. >> the room layout is
reflective-- >> in one thof flats they subdivide one of the rooms to add more bedroom squz that is issue. >> you are going to comply by- >> the bedroom layout per the 94/95 permits and plans >> commissioner walker >> there was a issue brought up that sense there was a nov issued in 94 that we are doubling up or whatever, did the owner who purchased the building look at the history of the building and notice prior to buying it? >> i don't know. i'm trying to get it fixed so i can't answer that question. >> if the issues are not fixed then we are dealing with a whole new set of issues >> i don't know what they knew. i know when you buy a building
on 3 r it doesn't have a list of existing notice of violation. i believe it has a list if there a abatement so i would look at the 3 r and see if there is a abatement order. if they knew that is a question for the lawyer. i don't know. >> okay. do we have any time left? >> i have paused it and started so there are 2 minutes left. >> did you want to add anything mr. freeman? you still have 2 more minutes. >> can you answer the question of has anyone looked at the history before the bought the building >> as far as i know orders of abatement show up on a title report but in terms of the specifics i don't know what was and wasn't-- >> you brought that up as if it had anything to do with the current status of the building and i'm saying when you buy a
building you buy as is and still have the issues. >> i understand that but what my point was different, my point was if the property and property owner is already punished for not having corrected these issues why are we punishing the property owner again for a new order of abatement for the same issue? as a matter of double jeopardy that seems wrong. if they have existing ish oo uzwhether they know or not that order of abatement exists and don't need the- >> i think we have to go through the procedure because there is a new owner. >> i did have a question about the demolition of the fronts stairs do you know when that happened? >> i think it may have been longer than that but somewhere in that vicinity. my understanding is they were doing work on the interior and
they essentially started to collapse. that is a issue in the order of abatement is the front stairs. that isn't a new issue either. any other questions i can attempt to address? >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> rose mary. >> we are doing public comment and rebutal. >> any members of the public who wish to-- >> get in line if you want to-- >> everyone who going to speak, please line up. >> [speaking spanish]
>> good morning. my name is luteesia, i'm a tenant counselor and organizer [inaudible] i'm work ong the tenants with repair issues since december december 2014. the property was owned by [inaudible] during the time when we filed the complaint in december. my understanding work under [inaudible] purchased the property in january, mid-january and the tenants spoke to a representative of theirs, told them about the repairs. we wrote letters about the repairs and i just don't understand why there has been no action. there a roof collapsing, i do
not feel safe walking on the back stairs and now you have 20 people, 22 people without a roof. [inaudible] sro's having to rent rooms, sleeping in cars. you have people without a home. it has been 6 months sich the purchase of property and it is since mid-prl when the tenants were forced out because of the conditions of the properties were so horrendous that the city didn't feel it was safe for them to be there. how do we holds these people responsible and get the repairs completed? that is what i'm here forime rrb here to advocate for the tenants. many latino immigrants struggling to also send money back home to families because now they are having to pay 600, 700 dollars for a hotel room
before they were able to share a room in the home. that is all i want to share. if you have any questions i'm also free. >> thank you. next. >> my name is [inaudible] i'm a attorney for the tenants that were living at 938-940 hampsure. i want to address issues [inaudible] first of all, when working group purchased the building there were leans on the property for the issues many issues that you are addressing today so they had knowledge of the deterioration. when someone buys a building they are responsible for repair issues and anything that needs to be taken care for the tenants in the property. the second thing is the permit that mr. freedman mentioned that were served with
the notice to vacate in march or april, a day before we filed the lawsuit against working [inaudible] those permits are the ones mrs. bosky mentioned that were inadequate and only addressed the minor issues in the property. they don't address the major issues including the back stairs and sale rring clamshs. when they say they aurmd pulled permits they are not mentioning the fact that the permiterize not for the mu kwlorft work you are talking about today. the next issue is they say they can't get permits, but they just removed the stairs about 2 or 3 weeks ago, so while they express concerns they can't get permits it doesn't stop them from doing things illegally anyway. further, they consistently stated in their appeal then in their support of their appeal brief, they say the tenants are getting in the way of them doing the work
necessary. the tenants have been out of that property for 2 and a half month squz not allowed back in the property with the exception of 2 or 3 times 2 of the times court ordered because the clients were forced to leave. the clients are living in hotel and can't store their property. the clients are not in the way, the tenant are not in the way. there is nobody in the property to get in their way. nerks they talk about the permit that they want to get for the majority of the property and how this old permit that was pulled in 1995 prevented them from doing this work. i believe building inspector [inaudible] signed off on that old permit in june, approximately a month ago. when i asked why that was, it is because the contractor asked them to do that because it was
in the way of getting the necessary permits to do the work now. it has been a month and no work is done. i don't know why it will take another week to start work when this place is vacant for 2 and a half months and signed off on the permit. also want to mention at a court hearing we asked the court to order access to our clients because they couldn't get in after the landlord locked the building and the clients had no way to get their prairpt. the attorney they had represent them mentioned they want ed to keep the tenants out because the tenants might squat in the property. despite the fact the tenants were still legal tents of the property. after the court order was given the day before the tenants were allowed to get their stuff out, the
landlord or somebody had both bathrooms completely gutted and all the kitchens had all the appliances removed. they were making sure our clients had no way of living in that property and we asked to have access to the property they said they can't get in because the stairs are eare moved. i ask you to question why the bathroom, kitchen and front stairs were removed and nothing else has been done. i'm sure my time is up so just wanted to thank you for letting me speak. >> thank you. next. >> next speaker. >> the public comment is 3 minutes but you have translators you can get double time. >> [speaking spanish] >> good morning my name is john
carilous and i am a tenant in the unit. they had us vacate and we are just wondering -wandering around. and we want today know if we were going be able to return quickly because the money we earn is not enough to be paying hotels. and we are hoping that it is repaired as soon as possible so we can return to the unit. i have
been a tenant since 2005 and since the new owner bought the property they made us vacate and i don't know why. and the new owner that arrived also didn't want to fix anything and i don't know why. and we have been vacated from-a while but we have been afraid to say anything because we feared we have to leave the property so
we have been living in those conditions for a while. and we have our personal items in there and we can't have access to them and we have been having to purchase new things that we need. for that same reason they removed the stairs so we wouldn't have access to come in. that's it, thank you. >> thank you. next, please. >> [speaking spanish] good
month, which-they fix their home so we can return to our things. and when we vacated the property, they told us it would take 1 to 2 week squz it is taken 3 months now and we are begging for your help because i don't feel it is fair we have been living in a hotel. and that's all i wanted to ask for, just for your help. thank
come by and charge their fees. we ask them to fix our water. we had cold water and we were taking cold showers and for a while we were not taking a shower. later on they would just come by and charge for their rent and nothing would happen. afterwards we found out they sold the property, a representative came by to talk to us, but nothing has happened. after the owners
purchase they told us we needed to vacate and it would take about 3 weeks like the other lady mentioned but woe have been living in hotels. i found a little room and paying 650 dollars and still don't have a bed. i have to sleep on the floor. all our personal items are still at the property. we haven't been able to access it. we just took out some clothing
my name is [inaudible] i am here to talk about the situation we have. there have been 3 owners in the property since i have been there and all 3 have sent just the representatives to collect the rent. the first one second one and third one-the second one and told the lady talk today the third own, i always asked her to repair the problems and i wonder why the owners never show their faith so we can see
problems and i wonder why the owners never show their faith so we can see who they are and talk to them. they should come by and say, i'm the owner so we could talk to them. and all of us have always been on time with our rents, we have never been late with any of the 3 owners and eve wn a money order we have to pay it. um, and i'm here to plead and demand that things are fixed because it is not fair. it has been 3 months, all most 4 and i haven't even been able to go in and get a shirt because we are not authorized to go in. we don't have anymore money to pay hotels and now i'm living with 3 orfore people and i sleep on the floor and i'm not embarrassed about it. that's it. >> thank you. next, please.
>> [speaking spanish-waiting for translation] >> good morning my name is [inaudible] i have been living at the 940 since 2003 and have the same issue as my other partners. myself, i don't have enough money to live in a hotel so i have to live in my car. that's it, thank you. >> next. >> good morning my name is diana mar teens and work for
the mission sro collaborative. april 6, myself and my supervisor [inaudible] and my coworks frank rod regs and [inaudible] came to the residence of 938 and 940 hampsure. the front stairs were so worn down it was unsair to walk in the building as was the back deck. the ceiling in the haulway and bathroom were falling down and in one bedroom the tenets had to put up a embrella over the shower so the dirty water didn't drip from the roof as they use the restroom. the tenants had to come up with temporary [inaudible] while the owner ignoreed the fact the building was falling apart. down stairs the conditions were worse. i saw what appeared to be
abestoes exposed. as stated earlier, the walk ways and walls and ceilings were so worn down it was extremely unsafe to walk or live on the premises. brureracy and paperwork isn't a exkoos. it has been months and months, there must be something done because it is incredibly unjust to have these tenants living in something compareable to tenement slums so please please do something because the tenants have been nothing but respectful to their home, but they have not been given the respect and the-nothing has been done to help them live in their own home. as they said earlier, they are separated from each other now and it is
completed uprooted their lives and making surviving in the city of san francisco even more difficult than it already is. thank you. >> any further public comment? >> 6 minutes of rebutal time. >> members of the board a couple things with wespect to the statements that were made by the property owners counsel. he talked about minor items, well, we need to redirect the fact that most of the things they talked about are not before you today. the collapsed ceiling and stairs and those types tof things are part of a different notice of violation with a order. the
oitem that are before you with the notice tw 20 items are the types of things if the property owner had operated in good faith could have made these corrections so that the haptabout could have been bet frr the people in the building. if you look at the notice of violation and you are deal wg repairing windows , a stove, sinks rodent infestation, repair a floor covering, i showed a photograph of that. these are the things before you, not what they mentioned. those are already dealt with with aprieveiates order. the property owner in february had a opportunity a deal with it. they hired early in february a 3rd party to give an assessment. we know from the december notice showing the ceiling collapses if they looked at the property they
know what they are getting into mpt with respect of those items i have to mention them. what repairs did they do? they didn't want to spend a lot of time or money. one is have the address at the front of the building cht this is what the inspector saw with reinspection. this is what they put up there. this is indicative of what is happening when we went out there and these are items they could have fixed and wouldn't have effected the other issues they need today plan for such as the stairs, and plumbing and roof collapse. that is what is before you today and because of that behavior we are saying that an order should be issued to make sure it is on the record so when they move forward everybody understand what has to be done. >> commissioner [inaudible] had a question >> you mentioned preerfbious violations. i don't see that in the packet.
>> those notices of evaluation are not before you but they brought them up to give information that will be more of a benefit when the next item comes up for the appeal before the commission but that isn't on this noticeof violation. this dealwise issues they could have made repairs on. >> commissioner lee. let me see if i restate what i think is happening. there is a notice of violation for the back porch but that is in the process of being resolved before the department and not before atoday? >> right >> what is before us is a notice of violation for 20 iletms- >> and that is the first item on the appeal and there is a second we are not as concerned about. those twonet items in the packet- >> i have a follow up question i asked [inaudible] it permits that are mentioned attachment
2, are those permits addressed or going to be address ing the notice of violations? >> some of the items. >> you have not verified that work has been completed is that correct? >> no that isn't correct. when we went out we verified ont 2 items were partially completed >> so most are not completed >> that is correct. they could have repaired them and didn't require a permit. >> that is why it is before us today. did [inaudible] say the permit he is pulling for the stairs or porch in the back include the permit which would include the work on the 20 items? >> it will from the standpoint they'll have to make repairs from that standpoint. >> but there are separate permits for the 20 items >> there was a permit pull in
march that stated it was for all notices but that was inadequate permit for job evaluation and scope of work and the fact it didn't have plans, it was a over the counter permit. mr. [inaudible] when he came into the process and at the time he indicated he worked with staff because a previous contractor tried to file permits and this one he filed is going through the process is a forum 3 permit i believe with the plans and it is 300 thousand dollar permit, but again that is mainly addressing things from the other notices of violation associated with the property. >> you are telling the 3 permits, the building electrical and plumbing are enacterate? >> the first permit chs inadequate all the other items we mentioned.
>> commissioner mu carthy >> so rosemery to address the counsels question why it are double fined we are talking about 2 separate violations >> 2 separate notices >> that doesn't hold water [inaudible] >> no it is the fact we had to spend the time because they know they should have looked at and seen ceiling collapses but hired a third party vendor and gave us a copoy of the report so they know thingerize going on with the building. the second notice of violation in early january we gave in february are things they could have done that wouldn't impact the other items. yes, that needs to be done but you have a situation where the flooring and strapping and windows, the mold and mildew and rodents
those are things they could have done to develop a plan for the larger issues and nothing was done and that is why we say this order should be recorded. >> just a follow up one of the things-can you explain to me at some point whether it is supervisors or organized they cant remove their personal items from the building? >> there wasa rangement made and will let the property owners explain that. we issued the notice of vacate we were not made aware the fact people had vacated until the hemth department let us know so there was an arrangement made to when the occupants would leave. at one point the tenant told us through attorney the property owner wasn't letting them in because he felt to do so is a violation of our notice so we signed a declaration saying they can go in in a safe matter
to get their personal belong ings. what happened since then is something they would have to tell you but we dopet prohibit that as long as it is done in a safe manner but the ability to do that is comicated by the fact additional work is done without permit. that is-the message isn't getting through. >> that is answered. one of the speakers testified there was 1 to 3 weeks-do you know who said that? was it-- >> thank you for raising that. at the time that the department of building inspection issued the notice of violationordsering the building to be vacated, i did have a conversation with the tenants attorney indicating the work was such that it was going to take longer than 3 weeks so people should not have a expectation they are getting back in their soon. that may
be something that they-a conclusion they came to but that isn't the message dbi was giving. i want to make that very clear. >> commissioner [inaudible] >> i wanted to clar fieify, we heard from a couple tenant that somebody from the owner team i guess-- >> i couldn't speak for that. >> commissioner mar. >> cheer inspector you may have answered this but want to be very clear on it, the contractor mentioned before he worked with planning to get a larger permit, so what you are saying is that a lot of the nov's could have been addressed by other permits, they could have done the work on the ceiling and plumbing violations and electrical violations, they could have done that and left the variance and the reissuing
of inback permit. leave that with planning and moved ahead and done some of the other things? >> no what i'm saying is that the notice of violation before you today has nothing to do with those items, those are in separate notices and have orders of abatement and a permit is necessary to [inaudible] and some of the items before you, most of these items having to do with flooring and strapping, having to do with mold and mildew and rodent infestation. making those repairs, most of that didn't require that permit and the main inhabitability issue that could have helped the quality of life of the people occupying. it wouldn't have solved all the problems but most of those things were doable before we had the
directors hearing at the end of april. they could have done some of those things and when we went out none of those things were done. they didn't call saying they are done now and come back out. in april 3, the building is vacated. that is what i'm saying, that is what is before you today. the other information is useful because you'll take it up in a few minutes, but now what is before you is a order dealing with that particular notice of violation. >> commissioner clint >> i do think it is germane the other violation because if both sets of stairs are decrepeed you don't want people going in through the stairs so a owner would want to repair them at the same time i would think. >> here is the dilemma and that is the property owner bought a occupied building and it is their responsibility to make sure their repairs are made and
come up with a plan to deal with all the other items. when we looked at this in february they had the ability to make repairs because people still lived in the building dealing with these issues so why not deal with the mold and mildew and rodent infestation-what does it take to screw on a number of the building so you don't put it on the piece of paper. this is what we confront and it is occupied building. the property owners knew it was a occupied building. that is what we are saying. >> commissioner lee. >> okay, so if commissioner clint is saying that the overall, the main-had permit mr. baus cuvich is trying to seek will solve everything and if we just correct-the property damage and correct the current notice of violation that are
before us, that is okay, but nobody can occupy the building, right? >> the building cannot be reoccupied until all the notices of violation are complied with. now we say we can have the property owner abate the deficiency and notice of violation before us today and that is acceptable to remove the abatement order for that one, right? for that one issue? >> the one with 3 items or 20 items? because he is going to do the overall repair we don't need a order on this one? >> no no no-what i'm asking is, if we uphold the order of abatement we compel the property owner tooz fix the 20 items on the notice of violation for that appeal,
right? or that order of abatement? but that means there is still no stairs in front or back, is that correct >> absolutely. my opening comments is the reason we feel strongly about the order being recorded is because it is list of a component of what has to be done. the stairs and plumbing and collapsed seal areering are on other notices of violation. there is a overall amount of work that's needs to be done, my concern is as they do it i want to make sure we get all this done because my understanding is we are deal wg the same contractors. mr. [inaudible] isn't doing the work, somebody else will be. that is my concern there is a order in place saying while you do this work, make sure this is done and think given the history and
record and testimony that is a legitimate request. >> you feel resolving the 20 issues won't take 3 or 4 months? >> to deal with the building overall? >> no >> these issues would have taken 2 or 3 weeks to do most of them, yes. >> i just want to clarify, it is a follow up to commissioner lee's question. if we uphold the order how much time does the [inaudible] feel is reasonable to get all the work done on the 20 items before us? >> my recommendation is uphold the hearing which means it would be-what you are doing is ratifying the orders the hearing officer indicated they wanted at the end of april and you don't have to modify t. you
can say we believe it should be enforced and effect and that would direct us to report it. >> i just want to follow up that even though this sounds like 30 days or a month or 2, we want to make it clear, even if they resolve these sitting 20 nov's which is part of commissioner lee's question, it doesn't mean the building is habitable? because they don't have front steps or rear steps. >> we have a notice in place that deals with that. you can modify that order my recommendation is upholds the hearing and we would record the order with you notice of decision saying that and nothing changes as far as that is concerned. that is my recommendation. >> because people are miss led and don't know by who but want to make sure they don't get further misled by a decision we
make here. >> thank you >> the appellate needs rebutal >> okay. >> thank you. we share in a lot of the sentiments you heard from the tenants and from misbosky and want to get the property fixed. we believe it should be fixed and diligently working to get it fixed. we don't deny there are issues and we have knowledge of them. what we think is inappropriate is for us to be penalized for taking missteps if we in tentionally disregarded others. i think the approach by mrs. bosky is given someone with a broken leg a band aid saying here, fix it. there is no point to a order of abatement to put a new window or a number on the door when the building remains uninhabitable. the
efforts of the property owner are focused on getting the property habitable again and that is what the commission should be focused on, a approach that gets the property habitable. doing all these things as xhengzer mar noted and a couple others as well, the order of abatement doesn't make the order habitable. it is unfortunate situation and if is a 20 year history the defarmt is dealing with. it is beyond me why this remains after 20 years that we are still dealing with the same issues and have to really question is the property owner the one who should be punished for this or does the department not share responsibility for allowing these condition to perpersist for these individuals saying they have lived here 5, 10, 15 years with conditions. i don't think it is appropriate to punish the person [inaudible] gets the
permit from the department starts doing work and told you need to fix this and need to fix that and every step of the way the property owner attempted to do that and continued to get permits and spend 10s of thousands of dollars to get permits to fix this property and make it habitable and have to deal with thereare 24 occupants living there before who may not be able to come back but that isn't a situation we created. [inaudible] i don't argue, the tenants are preventing from doing the irk with, but there are belongings that remain in the property and we offered to pay to relocate those belongings so we can move forward with the work. we offered to do that without obligation and as far as i know that remains out standing and not responded to. we are willing to move forward but there are imp pediments to be
able to do these things and think the commission should focus on the big issues as we have been and do think if you look that order of abatement that exists that was recorded as--let me see here--order number 2015-11822. you find some of the very ixues we are dealing with, the plumbing paint and general nuisance and we are considering a order of abatement and that is inappropriate to punish the owner [inaudible] >> i just want to make something clear. if someone took out the front steps to keep the tenants out, that would be despicable and i quit the job. that isn't what happened. the property owner
thought and i told him that didvent the right permit. they thought the notice of violation permit that referenced the condition of the front stairs was to rebuild the front stairs in wood. you can't build back in wood. conversations with planning said they have to go in [inaudible] i'm dealing with trying to find tur ozo steps because that is what have to go back but they thought they could rebuild them in wood. it wasn't to make it difficult for the tenet, this is the property owner trying to do something too fax and fix something simple like wood steps they could do right there and that was a bad decision but that was not a attempt to keep the tenants out. that was a attempt by the owner to do things too fast and it didn't work out. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner
walker. >> so this is been before us for a while now and i think we sort of discussed our herd a lot of the explanation about the comicated set of violations and i just want to say that when you buy a piece of property, you buy a piece of property and all of those things attached to it including tenant and notice of violation problems and i feel like we have probably taken too long to get these issues resolved and left people living in conditions that are totally unacceptable. i actually would like to make a motion to uphold the department decision, the hearing officer decision and not hold an abatement. the issues related
to the permits going forward can be dealt with accordingly. i think we are on track to make this, a place people can live in again. hopefully that happens sooner rather than later. i feel like we have done all we can to try and move this forward. >> i just want to remind you you is 2 separate orders of abatement so recommend you take 2 separate votes and consider separate motions for each order of abatement. one is the 20 item ortder and the other is the 3 item order. >> you are making a motion >> i'm making the motion for the first and the second, exactly the sameordser. can i do it that way or do it verbally? we heard them together so- >> it is appeal numbers 6812 and 6813 but the commissioners may want to take separate votes.
>> i think we may want to take separate votes because the department said the second is taken care of. >> i agree >> we need to uphold and [inaudible] >> i think from the first one, i want to address the appellates comment about being punishing the owner. i don't think we are going to make a decision because it is a new owner or previous owner or multiple owners. i think we are basing or decision on the property itself regardless of how money meno owners were. the solution the current owner is proposing to take right now addresses a overall issue, but it is [inaudible] they could have chose to address this abatement order with a superate permit and then the stairs and the other items with a second
permit. i'm not agreeing that we should give them time because their intent is to correct the problem with the overall permit. i am in favor of upholding the abatement order and supporting the department. >> are you seconding the motion? >> yes. commissioner mar. >> we are dealing with this separately and this is regarding the first order. >> just for the record, the order of abatement are 2015-20761. commissioner walker, that order has 7 days to complete all work provisions. it wasn't clear if you were modifying that or upholding that >> upholding that >> just as a point of clarification, i see conditions here that are going to prevent them from getting that done for
example the personal items in the building and we haven't seemed to address-for example if they say we can't get x and y done because of the personal items in there skn i'm hearing both parties are agreed to remove the items. i believe he wants to cooperate. are we doing that or not? maybe counsel if you can come up-and could we tie this as a part of the condition? >> just to address what mr. freedman said btd the offer to fray moving personal items out we are still discussing that. there isn't enough detail tooz make a decision and present it to the tenants for them to decide because the money is still an issue. but we do-the tenants do want their stuff out and do hope to come to something soon. just for the record that offer was only made
to us last week. >> i'm glad the offer is there but you do understand that will possibly be a road block as to why they can't move in sooner because of [inaudible] we are trying to be smart about this. >> wree looking to get this issue resolved as soon as possible. >> okay. we reflective of-some is done within 7 days and how do they do that in 7 days when the issues are still outstanding? i am not trying to camp icating and want to uphold the decision here--yeah. >> one of the things that i think needs to be taken into consideration is the notice of violation was written in january. the hearing officer looked at this in april and what is essentially means if the city sues for simple
penalties that can be taken into consideration the amount of time. at this stage as far as 7 days, i know there is a problem with that, but it is basically sending a message to the property owner at the time it was occupied you should have done the work. the fact that there are other issues the building is degigated to another level is separate. you is the ability to based on the testimony here and based on the testimony at the directors hearing to merely uphold the directors representative and that order would be issued and still center the ability to go ahead is and deal with these issues. it isn't penalizing them again, that is the process and we don't assess more assessment of cost. there is basically for the amount of time. it only comes into play if the city then sued them for failing to respond in a timely manner the courts can take that into consideration
regarding civil penalties for section 2 of 4 of the housing code. i don't believe 30 days will put them in any better situation with respect to what you heard. that is why i say if you feel more comfortable fine, but i do believe the hearing officer should be upheld. thank you. >> commissioner mar did you have one other question? >> yeah. to be clear on the construction process, the 7 days-we can deal with all the nov's-even if they get people in there they need a temporary stair to go in and out of the front to work on the windows and do the flooring, and i think that is possible, they can put in a temporary for people only to have access to the property. i just want to make sure that 7 days is
realistic. i'm not sympathetic to the new owner for the problems they face because they knew what they were buying which includes the tenants, i feel we moved-it would have been better if they addressed these issues while the tenants were in place, but that isn't what we are getting right now because the department didn't move on some of the original nov's fast enough. i would have liked to have sat a year ago with the previous owner sitting in front of us with all the tenant but that isn't what wree given, we are given today with all the tenants out. what we are given today is the new owner. i feel like while i'm not sympathetic to the problems the new owner faces because i agree with commissioner walker, they should have known what they are buying including the
physical problems and the tenants in place, but at the same time these nov's are not new. i don't feel they are new and go back a ways. >> may i-one thing i think that one should understand as far as the hearing officer looking at this as, the department doesn't-when the hearing officer is exercising the power of chapter 1 a of the building code to issue a order, when they give a 7 day order they are saying we don't want to give more time. we'll put a timeframe on it but believe you had sufficient time and you can appeal it. there is a time on there, but it doesn't mean if you didn't start the work when you receivered the notice of violation that we'll add more and more time. the city was sued a long time ago with
respect of issues 30 and 60 and 90 days. when the commission was created is much different. most of the notice of violation don't go beyond 30 days. we work with the individual if we are working with them and making progress. as i said that isn't what happened here. if you feel comfortable as far as a 30 day order that is your prerogative but so you understand when a representative of the director of hearing officer is giving that they are basically saying, i don't think giving anymore time is going to really do anything because they didn't start that when they were supposed to. they didn't do that process so that is the reasoning beyond that. while some issues may have gone a while, this is a r 3 occupancy so we have to be invited in. when we were invited in we were rigorous in our response. this
isn't a apartment building doing a routine inspection, we have to be invited in. maybe penal in the past didn't feel comfortable making complaints but i tell you with the 20 thousand billings we have the district inspector spent a lot of time trying to deal with the issues at this location and went above and beyond to try to address those. >> right now we have a motion on the floor and seconded. commissioner mar did you want to make a amendment to this motion? did you want to amend it? >> no. i feel the same way as our chief housing inspector does that it is a statement the departments we have that i would like to reinforce. >> uphold theordser of abatement in 6812 at written? >> yes. >> there is a motion and second. is there public comment on the motion? sorry,
we'll do a roll call vote. president [inaudible] yes. vice president [inaudible] commissioner mu carthy yes, commissioner mar, yes. commissioner lee, yes. commissioner mu cray, yes, commissioner walker, yes. the motion carries unanimously to item 6813. >> again, i move we uphold the director-the hearing directors decisions on appeal number 6813 and uphold the order of abatement. >> second. >> there is a motion and a second. roll call vote. president malgar yes. vice president clint, yes. commissioner mu carthy, yes.
commissioner mar, yes. commissioner [inaudible] commissioner walker, yes. the motion carries unanimously. item 3, general public comments not on the abatement appeals agenda? seeing none item f motion to adjourn. >> we are journed. we'll take a 5 minute resess and return for the building inspection commission.